Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-12> for your review
Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com> Tue, 26 September 2023 13:07 UTC
Return-Path: <starrant@amsl.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A91AC16B1E5; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 06:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.707
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.707 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z2KhDRrtG0X7; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 06:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c8a.amsl.com (c8a.amsl.com [4.31.198.40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E4D7AC16951E; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 06:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF45424B432; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 06:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c8a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c8a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CQB_PWsppbQH; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 06:07:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (unknown [IPv6:2600:1700:8f1d:4000:f14a:21e8:3e04:709c]) by c8a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEB2F424B42D; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 06:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6\))
From: Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMFZu3OzM6=x+OdSVbydQtC_LPxFXC75hPjJeQPdLYKFsFqKTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 08:06:52 -0500
Cc: Shwetha <shwetha.bhandari@gmail.com>, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, ippm-ads@ietf.org, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, Marcus Ihlar <marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com>, Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>, auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4E65E921-E5A5-4AAB-9B0A-0323393120FB@amsl.com>
References: <20230922050204.452BD13BB565@rfcpa.amsl.com> <PH7PR11MB847889EA16B9345EF695912EDAFEA@PH7PR11MB8478.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CA+SnWFGpQYKLjATHubaQeUPDjVM=phvoEQTz6Ra1EtmPM0m6GQ@mail.gmail.com> <32720E5D-EC9E-4415-998F-220C49B91670@amsl.com> <PH7PR11MB8478134D09FBF8A5CC179E5DDAC3A@PH7PR11MB8478.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CAMFZu3OzM6=x+OdSVbydQtC_LPxFXC75hPjJeQPdLYKFsFqKTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>, "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" <fbrockne@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/CI8pd612gar_fN5aoXH5o3se3sc>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-12> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 13:07:08 -0000
Hi Frank and Swetha, We have now received all necessary approvals and consider AUTH48 complete: https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9486 Thank you for your attention and guidance during the AUTH48 process. We will move this document forward in the publication process at this time. Sincerely, RFC Editor/st > On Sep 26, 2023, at 3:14 AM, Shwetha Bhandari <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com> wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for the updates. Much appreciated, the new version looks good to me too, I approve. > > Thanks > Shwetha > > > On Tue, 26 Sept 2023, 1:12 pm Frank Brockners (fbrockne), <fbrockne@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks a lot for implementing the changes this quickly - and thanks for all your help improving the document and catching even small nits. Great work. > The documents looks good to me, i.e., I approve. > > Cheers, Frank > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sarah Tarrant <starrant@amsl.com> > > Sent: Monday, 25 September 2023 20:32 > > To: Shwetha <shwetha.bhandari@gmail.com>; Frank Brockners (fbrockne) > > <fbrockne@cisco.com> > > Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; Shwetha Bhandari > > <shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com>; ippm-ads@ietf.org; ippm- > > chairs@ietf.org; marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com; Martin Duke > > <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options- > > 12> for your review > > > > Hello Frank and Swetha, > > > > Thank you for your replies. > > > > We have updated the document according to Frank’s reply. > > > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not > > make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Please contact us with > > any further updates or with your approval of the document in its current > > form. Note that we will await approvals from each author prior to moving > > forward in the publication process. > > > > Please review the document carefully to ensure satisfaction as we do not > > make changes once it has been published as an RFC. Contact us with any > > further updates or with your approval of the document in its current form. > > We will await approvals from each author prior to moving forward in the > > publication process. > > > > Note that it may be necessary for you to refresh your browser to view the > > most recent version. > > > > Updated XML file: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.xml__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp4JohndnQ$ > > > > Updated output files: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp7rOS3unA$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.txt__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp4ms7tepg$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.pdf__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp5BpWLUwg$ > > > > Diff file showing all changes made during AUTH48: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-auth48diff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp5FkOZpSg$ > > > > Comprehensive Diffs: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-diff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp7WrDdMcg$ > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-rfcdiff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp73KQ_MLg$ (side-by-side diff) > > > > For the AUTH48 status of this document, please see: > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9486__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp7tkk5sPw$ > > > > Thank you, > > > > RFC Editor/st > > > > > On Sep 23, 2023, at 8:08 AM, Shwetha <shwetha.bhandari@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks much for the review and suggestions. +1 to Frank's response to > > the suggestions. > > > Looks good to me. > > > > > > Thanks > > > Shwetha > > > > > > On Sat, 23 Sept 2023, 6:21 pm Frank Brockners (fbrockne), > > <fbrockne@cisco.com> wrote: > > > Dear RFC editor, > > > > > > Thanks a lot for your review and suggestions. Please see inline below. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> > > > > Sent: Friday, 22 September 2023 07:02 > > > > To: shwetha.bhandari@thoughtspot.com; Frank Brockners (fbrockne) > > > > <fbrockne@cisco.com> > > > > Cc: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; ippm-ads@ietf.org; > > > > ippm-chairs@ietf.org; marcus.ihlar@ericsson.com; > > > > martin.h.duke@gmail.com; auth48archive@rfc-editor.org > > > > Subject: Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 > > > > <draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options- > > > > 12> for your review > > > > > > > > Authors, > > > > > > > > While reviewing this document during AUTH48, please resolve (as > > > > necessary) the following questions, which are also in the XML file. > > > > > > > > 1) <!--[rfced] Would you like to rephrase the RFC's title as follows > > > > in order for "(IOAM)" to be included, similar to the title of RFC 9197? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > In-situ OAM IPv6 Options > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) IPv6 > > > > Options > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > IPv6 Options for In Situ Operations, Administration, and > > > > Maintenance > > > > (IOAM) > > > > --> > > > > > > ...FB: Agreed. Consistency with RFC 9197 is a good thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) <!-- [rfced] Please insert any keywords (beyond those that appear > > > > in the > > > > title) for use on https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/search__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp5vgG2lvw$ . > > > > --> > > > > > > ...FB: Given that this document is about the encapsulation of IOAM into > > IPv6 options, IMHO the keywords in the title are sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) <!-- [rfced] Section 1: To closely match the text in RFC 9197, > > > > should this text be updated to add "that IOAM is enabled for"? > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > The terms "encapsulation" and "decapsulation" are used in this > > > > document in the same way as in [RFC9197]: An IOAM encapsulating > > node > > > > incorporates one or more IOAM-Option-Types into packets. > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > The terms "encapsulation" and "decapsulation" are used in this > > > > document in the same way as in [RFC9197]: An IOAM encapsulating > > node > > > > incorporates one or more IOAM-Option-Types into packets > > > > that IOAM is enabled for. > > > > --> > > > > > > ...FB: Agreed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 4) <!-- [rfced] Section 3: FYI, in order to make it clear that the > > > > list goes with "Option Data", we have updated the text for as > > > > follows and changed the indentation of the list. Please review and let us > > know if you prefer otherwise. > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > Option Data: Variable-length field. Option-Type-specific data. > > > > > > > > IOAM Option data is inserted as follows: > > > > > > > > 1. Pre-allocated Trace Option: ... > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > 2. Proof of Transit Option: ... > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > Option Data: Variable-length field. The data is specific to the > > > > Option Type, as detailed below. > > > > > > > > Pre-allocated Trace Option: ... > > > > > > > > Option Type: ... > > > > > > > > IOAM Type: ... > > > > > > > > Proof of Transit Option: ... > > > > > > > > Option Type: ... > > > > > > > > IOAM Type: ... > > > > --> > > > > > > ...FB: Agreed. The enumeration also didn't make a lot of sense, i.e., the > > simple list like you have it now, is better. > > > > > > > > > > > > 5) <!--[rfced] Section 3: The term "4n alignment" has not been used > > > > in in other RFCs. Would you like to update it as follows or otherwise? > > > > (The surrounding text is included for context; it uses the phrase "a > > > > multiple- > > > > of-4 offset".) > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > All the IOAM IPv6 options defined here have alignment requirements. > > > > Specifically, they all require 4n alignment. This ensures that > > > > fields specified in [RFC9197] are aligned at a multiple-of-4 offset > > > > from the start of the hop-by-hop and destination options header. > > > > > > > > Perhaps: > > > > All the IOAM IPv6 options defined here have alignment requirements. > > > > Specifically, they all require alignment on multiples of 4 bytes. > > > > This ensures that fields specified in [RFC9197] are aligned at > > > > a multiple-of-4 offset from the start of the hop-by-hop and > > > > destination options header. > > > > --> > > > > > > ...FB: Agreed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 6) <!--[rfced] Section 6: To confirm, is it intentional that the > > > > descriptions of the two option types exactly match? > > > > Both are "IOAM Destination Option and IOAM Hop-by-Hop Option", as > > > > shown in the registry (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp5SAIBTvw$ > > > > parameters/). > > > > --> > > > > > > ...FB: This is probably the best we can do. TBD_1_0 (0x11) and TBD_1_1 > > (0x31) apply to both hop-by-hop as well as destination options. An > > alternative would be to explicitly spell out which IOAM option types apply > > to which value - which would make the registry entries very long and also > > would require updating them, as soon as any newly defined IOAM option > > type would use a code point. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 7) <!-- [rfced] Contributors section > > > > > > > > FYI, per Section 4.1.1 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"), we updated > > > > the document to have one section titled "Contributors". We have > > > > removed the sentence about "and the end of this document" and used > > > > the contact information from the "Contributors' Addresses". > > > > > > > > Current: > > > > Contributors > > > > > > > > This document was the collective effort of several authors. The text > > > > and content were contributed by the editors and the coauthors listed > > > > below. > > > > > > > > Carlos Pignataro > > > > [...] > > > > --> > > > > > > > > > > ...FB: ACK. Makes sense. > > > > > > > > > > > 8) <!-- [rfced] Please review these terms and let us know if it's > > > > acceptable to update to the form on the right to match past RFCs, > > particularly RFC 9197. > > > > > > > > Edge to Edge Option -> Edge-to-Edge Option > > > > IOAM data fields -> IOAM Data-Fields > > > > IOAM E2E option -> IOAM E2E Option > > > > IOAM Option Type -> OAM Option-Type > > > > IOAM domain -> IOAM-Domain > > > > IOAM-Opt-Type -> IOAM Opt-Type > > > > IOAM-Option-Types -> IOAM Option-Types > > > > Option Type vs. Option-Type -> Option-Type > > > > Proof of Transit Option -> Proof of Transit Option-Type > > > > --> > > > > > > ...FB: Perfect. Thanks for driving towards consistency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 9) <!-- [rfced] FYI - We have added expansions for abbreviations > > > > upon first use per Section 3.6 of RFC 7322 ("RFC Style Guide"). > > > > Please review each expansion in the document carefully to ensure > > correctness. > > > > --> > > > > > > ...FB: Thanks. All your expansions look good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10) <!-- [rfced] Please review the "Inclusive Language" portion of > > > > the online Style Guide <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp6uNY9kgA$ > > > > editor.org/styleguide/part2/#inclusive_language> > > > > and let us know if any changes are needed. > > > > > > > > Note that our script did not flag any words in particular, but this > > > > should still be reviewed as a best practice. > > > > --> > > > > > > ..FB: Thanks. I did not catch any issues either. > > > > > > Thanks a lot for all the updates and suggested edits. With those, the doc > > looks ready to me. > > > > > > Thanks, Frank > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > > > RFC Editor/st/ar > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 21, 2023, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org wrote: > > > > > > > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > > > > > > > Updated 2023/09/21 > > > > > > > > RFC Author(s): > > > > -------------- > > > > > > > > Instructions for Completing AUTH48 > > > > > > > > Your document has now entered AUTH48. Once it has been reviewed > > and > > > > approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an RFC. > > > > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies > > > > available as listed in the FAQ (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp60L72d-Q$ ). > > > > > > > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > > > > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > > > > your approval. > > > > > > > > Planning your review > > > > --------------------- > > > > > > > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > > > > > > > * RFC Editor questions > > > > > > > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > > > > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > > > > follows: > > > > > > > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > > > > > > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > > > > > > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > > > > > > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > > > > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > > > > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > > > > > > > * Content > > > > > > > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > > > > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > > > > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > > > > - contact information > > > > - references > > > > > > > > * Copyright notices and legends > > > > > > > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > > > > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > > > > (TLP – https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp5b4_T9YQ$ ). > > > > > > > > * Semantic markup > > > > > > > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > > > > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > > > > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > > > > <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp6TyxiOzQ$ >. > > > > > > > > * Formatted output > > > > > > > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > > > > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > > > > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > > > > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > > > > > > > > > > Submitting changes > > > > ------------------ > > > > > > > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using ‘REPLY ALL’ as > > > > all the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The > > > > parties > > > > include: > > > > > > > > * your coauthors > > > > > > > > * rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org (the RPC team) > > > > > > > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > > > > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > > > > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > > > > > > > * auth48archive@rfc-editor.org, which is a new archival mailing list > > > > to preserve AUTH48 conversations; it is not an active discussion > > > > list: > > > > > > > > * More info: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp67hRYISQ$ > > > > 4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > > > > > > > * The archive itself: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp5QXIlP0w$ > > > > > > > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > > > > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > > > > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > > > > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > > > > auth48archive@rfc-editor.org will be re-added to the CC list and > > > > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > > > > > > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > > > > > > > An update to the provided XML file > > > > — OR — > > > > An explicit list of changes in this format > > > > > > > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > > > > > > > OLD: > > > > old text > > > > > > > > NEW: > > > > new text > > > > > > > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an > > > > explicit list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > > > > > > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that > > > > seem beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, > > > > deletion of text, and technical changes. Information about stream > > > > managers can be found in the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require > > > > approval from a stream manager. > > > > > > > > > > > > Approving for publication > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > > > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email > > > > stating that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use > > > > ‘REPLY ALL’, as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your > > approval. > > > > > > > > > > > > Files > > > > ----- > > > > > > > > The files are available here: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.xml__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp5dMQd-mA$ > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp7rOS3unA$ > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.pdf__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp5BpWLUwg$ > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.txt__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp4ms7tepg$ > > > > > > > > Diff file of the text: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-diff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp7WrDdMcg$ > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-rfcdiff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp73KQ_MLg$ (side by > > > > side) > > > > > > > > Diff of the XML: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-xmldiff1.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp5a_aiIlQ$ > > > > > > > > The following files are provided to facilitate creation of your own > > > > diff files of the XML. > > > > > > > > Initial XMLv3 created using XMLv2 as input: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.original.v2v3.xml__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp6jYLstuw$ > > > > > > > > XMLv3 file that is a best effort to capture v3-related format > > > > updates > > > > only: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486.form.xml__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp7HCfXWYw$ > > > > > > > > For your convenience, we have also created an alt-diff file that > > > > will allow you to more easily view changes where text has been > > > > deleted or > > > > moved: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc9486-alt-diff.html__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp66dNz24A$ > > > > > > > > Tracking progress > > > > ----------------- > > > > > > > > The details of the AUTH48 status of your document are here: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc9486__;!!MZ3Fw45to5uY!P2uLMJ87Ax95ANmrAda6ftjYdCgqXIAyizMCsrTWzOXi0ox52eOHm8XpPlps3vNvhgjxjkTKnpzxDulMwp7tkk5sPw$ > > > > > > > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > > > > > > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > > > > > > > RFC Editor > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > RFC9486 (draft-ietf-ippm-ioam-ipv6-options-12) > > > > > > > > Title : In Situ Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) > > > > IPv6 Options > > > > Author(s) : S. Bhandari, Ed., F. Brockners, Ed. > > > > WG Chair(s) : Marcus Ihlar, Tommy Pauly > > > > Area Director(s) : Martin Duke, Zaheduzzaman Sarker
- [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-ippm-… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-i… rfc-editor
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-i… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-i… Shwetha
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-i… Sarah Tarrant
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-i… Frank Brockners (fbrockne)
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-i… Shwetha Bhandari
- Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9486 <draft-ietf-i… Sarah Tarrant